MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107806918 · doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000000879

Selective Nonoperative Management in 1106 Patients With Abdominal Gunshot Wounds

2014· article· en· W2107806918 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Surgery · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAbdominal Trauma and Injuries
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLaparotomySurgeryGunshot woundProspective cohort studyTrauma centerPhysical examinationRetrospective cohort studyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Objective: The primary aim of this study was to delineate the role of computed tomography (CT) in patients undergoing NOM for AGSW. Background: Nonoperative management (NOM) of abdominal gunshot wounds (AGSWs) remains controversial. Methods: This prospective study included all patients with abdominal gunshot injuries admitted to our trauma center from April 1, 2004 to September 30, 2009. Exclusion criteria included patients with peritonitis, hemodynamic instability, unreliable physical examination, head and spinal cord injury with an AGSW underwent immediate laparotomy. The remaining patients were selected for NOM. Nonperitonitic stable patients with right-sided thoracoabdominal/right upper quadrant gunshots and/or hematuria underwent mandatory CT with intravenous contrast. CT to detect missile trajectory was optional. The primary outcome measure was failure of NOM. Secondary outcomes were unnecessary laparotomy rates and mortality. Results: A total of 1106 patients with abdominal gunshot injuries were admitted. Of these, 834 (75.4%) underwent immediate laparotomy, whereas 272 (24.6%) were selected for NOM. In the former group, there were 56 (6.7%) deaths and 29 (3.5%) unnecessary laparotomies, whereas in the latter NOM group, 82 (30.1%) patients were managed by serial clinical examination alone, whereas 190 (69.9%) patients underwent abdominal CT scanning, in addition to serial clinical examination. The overall NOM success rate was 95.2%. Of the 13 patients undergoing delayed laparotomy, there were 10 therapeutic, 2 nontherapeutic, and 1 negative laparotomy. Conclusions: The NOM of appropriately selected patients with AGSW with selective use of CT scanning is feasible, safe, and effective, but largely based on findings from serial clinical examinations. Clinical examination is critical and accurate at predicting patients requiring laparotomy after abdominal gunshot wounds (AGSWs). Nonoperative management (NOM) of AGSWs in patients without diffuse peritonitis and persistent hypotension, and a reliable serial physical examination, is safe. The selective use of computed tomographic scanning in patient candidates for NOM is also safe.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it